Re: [Groff] computer modern fonts in EQN with Tps?

[Tadziu Hoffmann]

> In the past, I've played with the dvi backend, which doesn't seem to
> be very actively supported but works nonetheless.  Try compiling your
> file with -Tdvi, and then use dvipdfm to produce the pdf.  Everything
> will be in CM, and the mathematics looks better than -Tps (perhaps a
> subjective impression, since I am used to seeing CM mathematics).

For the curious, here's a little comparison of some simple
equations in different fonts:

  http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/people/hoffmann/roff/math-compare.pdf

Things to note:

 1. TeX can use a different font for (sub/super)-scripts and for
    (sub/super)-script-(sub/super)-scripts (e.g., CMMI10 for
    normal-size text, CMMI7 for subscripts, and CMMI5 for
    subscript subscripts).  Question to the list: would we want
    to support a similar feature in eqn?  Now that Adobe is
    beginning to put a larger number of "opticals" on the
    market, this may become more relevant.  TeX has supported
    the use of "opticals" since its inception. (E.g., CMMI5 is
    fatter and wider than CMMI10 at the same size.)

 2. groff -Tdvi uses Computer Modern Text Italic for the math
    instead of Math Italic (Math Italic is a bit wider than
    Text Italic).  For some obscure reason, the letters in
    CMMI are not encoded.

 3. By default, TeX puts much more generous spacing around
    matrices than does groff+eqn.

 4. On my computer there is a bug in the combination groff -Tdvi
    and dvipdfm which causes fraction bars to be drawn too
    thin.  groff -Tdvi with dvips and ghostscript works okay,
    as does dvipdfm with TeX.

 5. The last page shows off some cool stuff one can do passing
    the time playing around with eqn+troff+grops instead of
    doing useful work.  (I had to choose an example without
    braces because I haven't gotten around to drawing braces
    yet.)